Had Diana Lived...

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Monika_

I totally agree with you. Perhaps a lot of what we see today is because they lost their mother at such an early age and, for that reason, maybe their father has given them too much freedom...and perhaps he's also been preoccupied with other concerns...

but i'm not so sure that what they're doing is any different than what other people their age are doing. aside from the fact that they can travel more often, they go to clubs which is what other people their age do. granted it's not what we like to see our royalty doing but it's not unusual for people their age.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If Diana had lived and found herself a husband she could love and trust, I wonder what Paul Burrell would be doing now.

Probably fired by the husband.

[Skydragon]

I think that William and Harry would have less baggage to carry. The constant 'do this in memory' of their mother has and is probably doing as much damage as hearing all the details of her love life.

Going by her relationship history, if she had remarried, there would always have been the chance of divorce, marriage, divorce, marriage etc.

I don't believe Diana would ever have married again, for the simple reason that she would have lost her title.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think that William and Harry would have less baggage to carry. The constant 'do this in memory' of their mother has and is probably doing as much damage as hearing all the details of her love life.

But perhaps if they thought about what she would say when getting drunk, it would cause less damage to their credibility.

I don't believe Diana would ever have married again, for the simple reason that she would have lost her title.

Now I strongly disagree. You paint her as someone who only thought about her title while she was ready to marry Hasnat Khan.

[caroline mathilda]

Diana herself always was proud of the fact that she "already had a title:" Lady Diana Spencer. Additionally she was very proud of her aristocratic family, the Spencers , which were older than the current Windsor dynasty.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

But perhaps if they thought about what she would say when getting drunk, it would cause less damage to their credibility.

If she was going to have any effect on them drinking etc, then the fact that people would see it as letting their mother down, would have stopped them before now, surely? I also can't quite see Charles saying 'well done boys' and that didn't make any difference.

At some point people have got to allow these young men to become known in their own names.

Now I strongly disagree. You paint her as someone who only thought about her title while she was ready to marry Hasnat Khan.

Nobody knows whether she would have gone through with a marriage to Dr Khan. According to Khan, Diana broke up with him, not the other way around.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Nobody knows whether she would have gone through with a marriage to Dr Khan. According to Khan, Diana broke up with him, not the other way around.

And nobody knows whether she was that attached to her title.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

And nobody knows whether she was that attached to her title.

True but reports at the time suggested that keeping the title was a major sticking point in the divorce. Just reading through some of the articles, all suggest that Diana was desperate to retain as many of the royal 'trappings' as was possible.

But perhaps if they thought about what she would say when getting drunk, it would cause less damage to their credibility

It didn't seem to affect them that the country thought they were wasters, so why would it affect them what their mother might have thought. These were not the little boys people remember, with a mummy loyalty, but grown men. I hardly see Diana popping down to the barracks to tell them off, they would have been laughed off the base!

Sadly as I realised from reading a post made in another thread, part of Diana's legacy will be that she almost destroyed the monarchy.

[Monika_]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

But perhaps if they thought about what she would say when getting drunk, it would cause less damage to their credibility.

Now I strongly disagree. You paint her as someone who only thought about her title while she was ready to marry Hasnat Khan.

I totally agree about the drunken antics. Diana was extremely intuitive and she would understand that this sort of behavior doesn't fly for two royal princes for whom respect and relevance is so important.

As for her title, I think she gave us a darn good clue when she said she wanted to be Queen of People's Hearts. I believe that was a pretty clear indication of the fact that she knew she wouldn't be crowned Queen. She wanted to be seen as someone who was in tune with and relevant to the general public. I'm not saying it wasn't a hot topic during the divorce, but only as it pertained to her role as the mother of a future king.

[caroline mathilda]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Sadly as I realised from reading a post made in another thread, part of Diana's legacy will be that she almost destroyed the monarchy.

I don't often agree with your viewpoint Skydragon, but this time I think you are indeed correct. I am most saddened by the missed opportunity for the advancement of the Monarchy by this seeming "Golden Couple." I find myself musing on the early days of their marriage when they appeared to make such a good team. Had the myth been the reality, the Monarchy's current situation and future would have been extraordinarily enhanced.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

True but reports at the time suggested that keeping the title was a major sticking point in the divorce.

There was no issue over her title. As a divorcee, she was automatically entitled to use the style of "Princess of Wales" until she remarried. The real issue was her royal rank as HRH, which she voluntarily offered to relinquish early on in a meeting with The Queen and Robin Janvrin.

Later, she decided she wanted to keep it after all (remember Sarah, Duchess of York had also finalized her divorce terms at the time) to ensure her position as the mother of a future king. The Queen and Prince Charles were willing to compromise and offered being created "HRH Princess Diana" in her own right, but she pushed for "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" instead, which was totally inappropriate for a former wife.

After reaching agreement on all the other issues, Diana telephoned The Queen to ask if she could remain HRH. The Queen said no.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by branchg

There was no issue over her title. As a divorcee, she was automatically entitled to use the style of "Princess of Wales" until she remarried. The real issue was her royal rank as HRH, which she voluntarily offered to relinquish early on in a meeting with The Queen and Robin Janvrin.

Later, she decided she wanted to keep it after all (remember Sarah, Duchess of York had also finalized her divorce terms at the time) to ensure her position as the mother of a future king. The Queen and Prince Charles were willing to compromise and offered being created "HRH Princess Diana" in her own right, but she pushed for "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" instead, which was totally inappropriate for a former wife.

After reaching agreement on all the other issues, Diana telephoned The Queen to ask if she could remain HRH. The Queen said no.

Thank you for that branchg. My argument remains valid though, if she wanted desperately to retain the HRH, the loss of the style of Princess of Wales, would have been something she would have considered before any remarriage

The articles I have been reading said she finally agreed to the loss of the HRH in return for a larger settlement.

[caroline mathilda]

Although I have always been fond of the Princess from the beginning of her Royal career, in the final analysis, Diana simply overplayed her hand. I always thought that the Queen was generous for allowing her to keep the Princess of Wales title. There was absolutely no historical precedent for her keeping the HRH. Case in point: the divorcee Wallis Simpson was never given the HRH.

[Monika_]

As far as the 'HRH' is concerened, how can Diana be compared to the DoW? In that case, it would be more fitting to compare Wallis and Camilla.

[Duchess]

i agree with you caroline. simply because someone is entitled to something doesn't mean they get it and just because they get something doesn't mean they're entitled to it. diana didn't need a title to have a legacy, we see that now and we see it everyday all over the world.

[sirhon11234]

The Queen and Prince Charles were willing to compromise and offered being created "HRH Princess Diana"

That was quite reasonable IMO I don't understand why Diana couldn't have settled being HRH The Princess Diana, would the title of HRH Diana, Princess Wales be higher than HRH The Princess Diana?

[kimebear]

She would not have been HRH The Princess Diana, just HRH Princess Diana. It was a most generous offer, but one that came with a much smaller financial settlement. We also don't know if it was a title that hinged on her remarriage or not. If she would have been obliged to give up the title upon a remarriage (a la Alexandra of Denmark), she would have poorly leveraged her independent financial future as well. In the end she settled for the money over the title. It's hard to blame her for that though. She was not terribly well off independently, but she would still need to keep up appearances as the mother of a future king. How would she have been able to do that without falling prey to the commercialized criticism that Sarah, Duchess of York faces? It's easy to say "she just could have lived simply in the background then", but then you can't forget that she was the figurehead for many charities, all of which benefited very generously from her enormously high profile. Perhaps a better solution would have been the title HRH Princess Diana and a generous annual living allowance, with her keeping the title, but losing the allowance upon remarriage. This would not have been unusual if she was made a princess in her own right.

[Monika_]

Kimebear, I totally agree with your reasoning.

[branchg]

Diana was quite wealthy in her own right. She was worth an estimated $8 million at the time of the divorce from her Spencer and Fermoy inheritances, which generated an income of approximately $400,000 annually. Certainly not enough to maintain the lifestyle of a princess, but she did have her own resources.

Most accounts have stated Diana declined the offer of "HRH Princess Diana" because she wanted to be independent and not have the Palace dictating her every move. Obviously, remaining a Royal Highness and a Princess of the UK in her own right would have been appropriate for the mother of a future king, however, it also came with responsibilities to the Crown that she no longer wanted to fulfill.

You can't have it all.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

That was quite reasonable IMO I don't understand why Diana couldn't have settled being HRH The Princess Diana, would the title of HRH Diana, Princess Wales be higher than HRH The Princess Diana?

Yes, because being "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" implies she is a dowager or the current wife of the titleholder. "HRH Princess Diana" is not that distinctive of her position, given that she would share the same title and style as Alexandra, Beatrice, Eugenie, etc.

If she had been offered a peerage in her own right on top of being a princess, that might have been more attractive. But I think, in the end, her main concern was ensuring her financial security and independence, not her title and rank.